Open Archaeology 2019; 5: 365–382 Original Study Axel G. Posluschny*, Ruth Beusing Space as the Stage: Understanding the Sacred Landscape Around the Early Celtic Hillfort of the Glauberg https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2019-0023 Received February 23, 2019; accepted June 8, 2019 Abstract: The Early ‘Celtic’1 hillfort of the Glauberg in Central Germany, some 40 km northeast of Frankfurt, is renowned for its richly furnished burials and particularly for a wholly preserved sandstone statue of an Early Iron Age chief, warrior or hero with a peculiar headgear – one of the earliest life-size figural representations north of the Alps. Despite a long history of research, the basis for the apparent prosperity of the place (i.e., of the people buried here) is still debated, as is the meaning of the settlement site as part of its surrounding landscape. The phenomenon known as ‘princely sites’ is paralleled in the area north and west of the Alps, though each site has a unique set of characteristics. This paper focusses on investigations and new excavations that put the Glauberg with its settlement, burial and ceremonial features into a wider landscape context, including remote sensing approaches (geophysics and LiDAR) as well as viewshed analyses which define the surrounding area based on the Glauberg itself and other burial mounds on the mountains in its vicinity. Keywords: Sacred places, calendar building, viewshed analyses, hillforts, ‘princely seats’ 1 Introduction – The Glauberg, an Early Iron Age ‘Princely Site’ The Late Bronze Age (Urnfield Culture; ca 1.200–780 BC) and Early Iron Age (Late Hallstatt and Early Latène period; ca 650–260 BC) hillfort on the Glauberg, some 40 km northeast of Frankfurt in Germany (fig. 1), has been in the focus of archaeological research since the beginning of the 20th century (Eduard Anthes, unpublished) with larger excavations between 1933 and 1939 by Heinrich Richter (Baitinger, 2011), followed by further field investigations (excavations of the wall on the plateau , three rich burials, and geophysical surveys) between 1985 and 2001 (State Heritage Service of Hesse: Baitinger & Pinsker, 2002; Recker & Rupp, 2018), the analysis of the older excavations on the plateau of the hill (Romano-Germanic Commission of the German Archaeological Institute: Baitinger, 2010), and new excavations (Mainz University: Hansen & Pare, 1 The term ‘Celtic’ is used here as a technical term only and does not refer to any ethnical interpretation. For a discussion of the different meanings and of the adaptation of this label for the Iron Age see Collis, 2003 and Farley & Hunter, 2015. Article note: This article is a part of the Special Issue on Unlocking Sacred Landscapes: Digital Humanities and Ritual Space, edited by Giorgos Papantoniou, Apostolos Sarris, Christine E. Morris & Athanasios K. Vionis *Corresponding author: Axel G. Posluschny, Keltenwelt am Glauberg – Research Centre – Am Glauberg 1,63695, Glauburg, Germany, E-mail [email protected] Ruth Beusing, Romano-Germanic Commission of the German Archaeological Institute, Palmengartenstr. 10–12, 60325, Frankfurt, Germany Open Access. © 2019 Axel G. Posluschny, Ruth Beusing, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License. 366 A.G. Posluschny, R. Beusing 2016) and archaeobotanical research (Frankfurt University: Baitinger, 2010; Stobbe, 2016. State Heritage Service of Hesse: Kreuz & Friedrich, 2014) between 2004 and 2010. Recent investigations, including excavations and geophysical surveys, have been carried out by the Research Centre of the Keltenwelt am Glauberg [World of the Celts at the Glauberg], mainly focussing on the large ditch/rampart system to the south of the hillfort (fig. 2) and on the settlement on the plateau (Posluschny, 2018a, 2018b, 2019a, 2019b; Posluschny & Röder, 2018, in press; Röder, Gottwald, & Posluschny, 2017a, 2017b, in press; Röder et al., 2018; see Balzer, 2018 for a short summary of the past research activities and Posluschny, 2018c for the perspectives of future research on the Glauberg). While the Iron Age occupation of the hillfort starts in the late Hallstatt period and ends in a late phase of the Early Latène period (Lt B2, possibly Lt C1; Hansen & Pare, 2016, p. 111), the burials can be dated to a middle or later phase of Latène A. The excavation of three rich burials recovering inter alia swords, spear and arrowheads, a shield, bronze flagons, fibulas and golden rings (fig. 3) indicates the social status as members of the local elite. Several of the grave goods are richly decorated in the Early Celtic art style, additionally suggesting their position and connectivity within an elite network. Moreover, the discovery of one fully preserved life-size sandstone statue of an Early Iron Age warrior only lacking its feet/base (fig. 4; https://sketchfab.com/models/0ef93f371295475298acc73440247fa8), and the scattered remains of at least three further statues, similar in appearance but fully destroyed (Baitinger & Pinsker, 2002), adorned with symbolic objects, is paralleled by those recovered in one of the burials, finalised the impression, that the Glauberg was one of those ‘Princely Seats’ (‘Fürstensitze’) of the Early Iron Age (mid 1st millennium BC), known mainly from southwestern Germany. However, the reason why the site became so rich and possibly important is still under discussion. Interpretations range from the Glauberg being a trading point on one of the main routes reaching from the fertile Wetterau Loess region and the area of the rivers Rhine and Main towards northeast via the Vogelsberg massif (Baitinger, 2008, pp. 17–19), the importance of agriculture as the basis for wealth (Kreuz & Friedrich, 2014) or possible religious or cultic meanings (cf. Posluschny, 2017 with a summary of the discussion regarding the Early Celtic ‘Princely Sites’). Figure 1. Map of Europe with the localisation of the Glauberg site near Frankfurt/Germany (graphic: A. G. Posluschny). Understanding the Sacred Landscape Around the Early Celtic Hillfort of the Glauberg 367 Figure 2. Map of the Glauberg with its various fortification systems. 1: Middle Neolithic (Rössen Culture) ditch; 2: Late Bronze Age (Urnfield Culture) promontory wall; 3: Iron Age (Late Hallstatt and Early Latène) wall surrounding the plateau; 4: Iron Age (Early Latène) annexe wall; 5: Iron Age (Early Latène) ditch/rampart system; 6: Iron Age (Early Latène) ‘processional avenue’ (map: A. G. Posluschny, contour lines based on Mainz University surveys). Figure 3. Gold finds from the Early Celtic ‘Princely Grave’ 1 from the Glauberg (photo: Pavel Odvody, hessenARCHÄOLOGIE). 368 A.G. Posluschny, R. Beusing Figure 4. Screenshot of the 3D scan of the life-size sandstone statue from the Glauberg (3D model and image: R. Shaw/G. Devlin, The Discovery Programme). 2 Methods In order to understand the reasons of the importance of the Glauberg site from an economic point of view, it seems prudent to focus on aspects that put the site into its landscape context, reflecting on existing features of the site itself, and also embedding it into the nearer environs within the broader landscape. Using different levels of scale when trying to understand the perceptional aspects of the sites is crucial to avoid misinterpretations based on a restricted perspective of the phenomenon ‘Fürstensitz’. This paper focusses on three levels: starting with the site itself and on one specific feature that relates to a calendrical meaning, then trying to understand some of the Glauberg’s features as an embodiment of a transitional zone between the living and the dead within the nearer environs, and finally looking at the site as part of a wider landscapes with the surrounding burial places structuring the visible land. This approach is based on the results of excavations, geophysical surveys, LiDAR data visualisations as well as cartographic and quantitative analyses based on toolsets provided by geographical information systems (GIS; see e.g. Llobera, 1996 or Wheatley & Gillings, 2001). The aim here is to widen a very often rather eco-deterministic point of view of such analyses by adding a somewhat more perceptional aspect (see e.g. De Reu, 2012; Bourgeois, 2013). Nevertheless, GIS are seen here as a potential means to overcome problems of a solely post-processional and perceptive approach that may lack objectivity when being based mainly on modern days, subjective perceptions of scholars (for a fundamental critique on post-processional landscape archaeology see Fleming, 2006). The main advantage of using GIS is the fact that it is based on archaeological and environmental data – which makes it a useful tool due to the reproducible nature of the results. However, the conclusion drawn from this data can be questioned (as can be any archaeological interpretation) hence they are here presented as one of many possible scenarios that could help to understand aspects of worship and sacredness of the Glauberg in its surrounding landscape and moreover the overall importance of the Glauberg in the Early Iron Age Understanding the Sacred Landscape Around the Early Celtic Hillfort of the Glauberg 369 3 Results & Discussion Some intermediate results of the research and the analyses undertaken will be presented here according to the different levels of scale that have been in the respective focus. However, the Glauberg as an Early Celtic site has to be approached from a holistic perspective: all perceivable aspects and scales have to be considered to sufficiently